Parker C. Myslow v. United States

In courts-martial, a military judge signs the Entry of Judgment (EOJ), marking the end of trial and the beginning of the post-trial process. Air Force regulations required that a judge advocate later sign a separate memorandum titled “First Indorsement.” That First Indorsement memorandum informs the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that the servicemember had been deprived of his Second Amendment rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922, without any finding from the authoring judge advocate or any judicial officer that servicemember has been convicted of a crime of violence or the conduct otherwise falls within the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Article 66(d)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), specifically empowers military courts of criminal appeals to provide appropriate relief to correct errors in the processing of courts-martial made after the EOJ. However, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (Air Force Court) and the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) have decided that no military appellate court has the authority to correct an erroneous firearm prohibition included in the First Indorsement. The question presented is: Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.